View Full Version : Is there better than "Mil-Spec?"
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a Distributor for both BCM and Colt.
Was reading a thread on here (which is now closed) about the fact that there are companies producing guns above the TDP (Technical Data Package). The company what was in question, was Colt.
I found this interesting and wondered how they came to this conclusion. Below are some thoughts on what the definition of "better" is and if it is accurate or not.
One of the companies mentioned as "above the TDP" was BCM. Since I am one of their Distributors and consider Paul a personal friend, I will use his company for the comparison.
BCM is well known for their quality and attention to detail. Paul pays close attention to the TDP and what it calls for. Why? Because he knows that it IS the standard.
Last year, there was a discussion about which was better (Colt or BCM). Here are Paul's comments from that thread:
First off, Colt is an outstanding product. It is the gold standard in the industry, and I am a big Colt fan.
To be mentioned as a comparison to Colt is a big honor.
End mills - Yes
Lathes, - No
Hammer Forge - BCM barrels are CHF from the premier small arms manufacturer in the free world. If you are a real Mk18 Pilot, then your going to be very familiar with the company. (all of our barrels have a very impressive petagree)
MPI Test - Done by an independent party. Certified, insured, and not concerned with the BCM bottom line.
Laser Bore Sighters - Yes - tons of them
Test Firing Bench - Yes.
Park Tank - Yes - several
We actually do more of the final machining, assembly, and QC than most AR15 companies, but we do not take forging/stock to a final product.
Arguing that one gun is better because more parts are made under their roof/s is silly. Quality product issues are much more complex than that. I will not name names but there is a large AR company that makes about as much stuff in house as Colt, and their rep for quality is on the other side of the spectrum.
The quality you find in a Colt product is not because of the location of the CNC machine. If the machine making parts sits on Colt’s shop floor or it sits across the street at another tool shop - it will not determine if the parts will be good or not. Colt’s product is the quality it is because of the specifications they set and the standard the parts must meet. Because the part is built to the RI print. If you want to argue one manufacture is better than another then that is the point to be made.
Paul
So now that we know the above, let’s discuss "better" than the TDP. Before we start, people need to recognize that there is NO SET STANDARD for the 16" or 14.5" middy gas port size. NONE! This means that companies will just make it whatever they want. Now some companies (like BCM) have conducted Cyclic rate tests to establish their GP size. This is not the norm though and IMHO, most middy barrels (especially 16" barrels) are over gassed (as there is no standard or document like the TDP).
The main argument that certain guns are above the TDP hinges on the Mid-Length barrel. Some believe that it is superior to carbine gas barrels because the GP is farther away (the gun shoots softer). Colt, would argue that the GP size on the 14.5" (.063) is tuned to give the same recoil impulse as a mid-length barrel.
So if the recoil differences between a Mid-Length barrel and a Carbine barrel are minimal, then how can we say that is above the TDP?
Personally, I think the argument that 16" middy barrels are "better" is based around the fact that you can run a longer rail. In this instance, I would agree that a longer rail is good option. Luckily, you can always put a low profile GB on a carbine gassed barrel or use DD's great 9.5FSP or 12.0FSP and achieve the same thing.
I know that some middy barrel zealots are reading this and screaming at their computer screens. Some might even believe that my opinion is way off on this. While this maybe true, I find it of interest that Mr. Larry Vickers shoots a carbine gassed DD rifle. He could have chosen a mid-length barrel, but did not. To add more fuel to the fire, when Mr. Ken Hackathorn had me build him a DD AR, he also chose a carbine gas system. Clue?
Back to the TDP. The TDP is a set standard not a guess. Only two companies have the official, licensed document. They are Colt and FN. Colt is the only one of these two that sells firearms to the consumer. Recognize that the TDP covers everything from barrel steel, to chrome thickness to the color of the phosphating. Companies that hold this document also have to deal with .GOV inspections and tests validating their parts. No other company has to deal with this level of scrutiny.
While I do recognize that the TDP could be improved upon, very few companies even approach meeting its requirements. I am a fan of the mid-length gas system, but at the end of the day, it is not a magic pill that somehow transforms a company into being above the TDP and Colt.
Sorry for the long winded post, but hopefully it sheds some light onto the TDP discussion. I do not own a Colt or BCM rifle, but do sell both products and have extensive knowledge on both companies and their firearms. Hopefully, people will recognize that this is an unbiased post and meant to educate on the topic.
In the end, buying a Colt or BCM is a fantastic choice and either AR will provide the shooter with years of enjoyment!
C4
Thanks Grant, that is very informative, and that it is full of those pesky facts that those other guys were lacking.
intensional
09-08-11, 09:40
In the end, buying a Colt or BCM is a fantastic choice and either AR will provide the shooter with years of enjoyment!
C4
This right here is why I read m4carbine. Thank you for the excellent post.
After buying, hating, and getting rid of a Del-ton rifle that I bought "because it was an AR", I decided to do some research. I ended up going with a BCM because of their reputation. I knew that no matter what barrel length or gas system I chose, it would be a quality weapon that would work well. It is only thanks to posts like this that I knew that BCM had a good reputation.
I PM'd IG about this because I didn't want to start another thread, but since you did :laugh:
What if we take the mid-length system out of the equation and compare a Colt 6920 to a DDM4v2 or a carbine length BCM? The specific statement that I was most curious about was that everyone else like DD, Noveske, KAC, BCM, was inferior to Colt because they don't have the TDP. I'm not doubting Colt's quality whatsoever, but if they were the bottom line best then how do the other companies even stay in business charging more than Colt? Why does LAV/Hackathorn/whoever shoot anything other than Colt?
I'm not married to DD by the way, im genuinely interested in this conversation and some information does not quite add up.
And if we did throw in different systems, is an SR-15 or Noveske N4 inferior (in terms of quality, reliability, etc...) to a 6920?
I have a Colt 6920 and a Noveske N4 midlength. Many people will say that the Noveske is better than the Colt, but I cant find anything on it that I would say is actually 'Better".
Some parts are different to meet a specific need, but I dont think that makes the product better.
The only products out there that I think could possibly be stated as better would be the CHF barrels. But then again I havent seen any shortcommings in the standard barrel on my or anyone else's Colt rifles.
Doc Safari
09-08-11, 09:43
Thanks for this thread, Grant. You pretty much give all the reasons why I own more than one carbine, but only one middy and it's a BCM.
I will just add a little fuel to the fire: I keep reading and/or hearing complaints about Colt AR's. I keep reading and/or hearing about quality control peaks and valleys at Colt. I don't hear about the same rollercoaster ride about BCM. I know any company occasionally produces a lemon, but if you look at the complaints on the errornet, unless I am horribly mistaken I see considerably more complaints about a Colt gun than a BCM one. Disclaimer is that Colt makes more guns in the first place, but with BCM's rising popularity you would think the issues would increase in reporting if they were there.
The one complaint I hear about BCM is that you have to wait for their guns!
So that I'm not a total fanboy for Bravo Company, I will say their rifles' components have more of a rough-around-the-edges finish than others I've seen like Colt or DD. My very first BCM carbine had a barrel that probably should have been a cosmetic blem barrel.
Did I send it back? No. Am I complaining? No. I'd rather have a barrel with a few scuffs on a rifle I know I can trust my life to rather than a perfect store-window shiny product that fails under stress or due to a quality control issue.
So in my humble opinion I do vote that BCM is superior to Colt.
You don't own a Colt or a BCM?:blink:
I PM'd IG about this because I didn't want to start another thread, but since you did :laugh:
What if we take the mid-length system out of the equation and compare a Colt 6920 to a DDM4v2 or a carbine length BCM? The specific statement that I was most curious about was that everyone else like DD, Noveske, KAC, BCM, was inferior to Colt because they don't have the TDP. I'm not doubting Colt's quality whatsoever, but if they were the bottom line best then how do the other companies even stay in business charging more than Colt?
As a DD/KAC/LMT/Noveske Dealer/Distr. I will not say that one is better than another. They are all fantastic IMHO and we are very lucky to have so many great options. In the end though, there is only one company that wrote and holds the TDP. This doesn't mean that the ones that do not are "lacking" it just means that one of the is the "Gold Standard" (to use Paul's comments).
Why does LAV/Hackathorn/whoever shoot anything other than Colt?
They do own Colt, but are also fans of other weapons as well.
C4
You don't own a Colt or a BCM?:blink:
No. I only shoot mutt's (that I build). ;)
C4
Current training weapon
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/GR%20Custom%20Builds/105_N4_DD_SBR.jpg
Thanks for this thread, Grant. You pretty much give all the reasons why I own more than one carbine, but only one middy and it's a BCM.
I will just add a little fuel to the fire: I keep reading and/or hearing complaints about Colt AR's. I keep reading and/or hearing about quality control peaks and valleys at Colt. I don't hear about the same rollercoaster ride about BCM. I know any company occasionally produces a lemon, but if you look at the complaints on the errornet, unless I am horribly mistaken I see considerably more complaints about a Colt gun than a BCM one. Disclaimer is that Colt makes more guns in the first place, but with BCM's rising popularity you would think the issues would increase in reporting if they were there.
The one complaint I hear about BCM is that you have to wait for their guns!
So that I'm not a total fanboy for Bravo Company, I will say their rifles' components have more of a rough-around-the-edges finish than others I've seen like Colt or DD. My very first BCM carbine had a barrel that probably should have been a cosmetic blem barrel.
Did I send it back? No. Am I complaining? No. I'd rather have a barrel with a few scuffs on a rifle I know I can trust my life to rather than a perfect store-window shiny product that fails under stress or due to a quality control issue.
So in my humble opinion I do vote that BCM is superior to Colt.
You are welcome. First, all companies put out lemons. When comparing Colt VS BCM (in regards to lemons produced), you have recognize the number of guns each company produces per year.
C4
Chris17404
09-08-11, 10:01
Thank you for the very informative post, Grant. It's always great to have a thread started that will generate thoughful responses based on knowledge and experience. I will read them eagerly.
It does seem to me... that lately here on M4C there's been a resurgance of appreciation for the carbine-length gas system on 16" and 14.5" barrels. The fact that this thread mentioned the idea of mid-length gas systems being "better" than mil-spec, and the resulting analysis will be interesting. From reading recent posts here on M4C made by knowledgable/respected members, it seems each gas system needs to be tuned correctly to function well, and one is not inherently more reliable than the other.
Chris
Panzerfaust
09-08-11, 10:06
Great and informative indeed. On the subject of gas systems, I generally follow this; less than 16in barrel is a carbine length gas system; greater than or equal to 16 inches, but not more than 18 is mid length; and greater than or equal to 18in is rifle length. I'm not an expert by any means (Probably not even an amateur.) But, it just seems that those lengths will keep the gas port far enough away from the muzzle as to ensure reliable functioning of the rifle. It also maximizes usable rail space in conjunction with a FSP. My reasoning behind this was the reason why they don't run the gas port all the way to the end of the barrel on a dissipator carbine, and also had a lot to do with the Colt model 605 (Experimental carbine developed during Vietnam, found at retroblackrifle.com) and its unreliable functioning as a result of the gas port being too close to the end of the barrel.
This thread is going to be enlightening. Gavin's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Gavin) comes to mind...
Be careful what you wish for because it may land on you!
Thanks for the post.
Especially appreciated after reading that other thread which you mentioned.
Thanks for the post. Having an independent tester may be the litmus test to claims of MPI, etc. It could help to cite this in threads where people make generalized claims for/against particular brands, as more and more firms are claiming "the spec".
Would CHF barrels (particularly FN) be "better" as far as specification than Colt following TDP?
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 10:19
When it comes to ''better'' than the TDP I don't think of gas systems specifically.
Bushmaster makes a midlength: that doesn't mean they exceed the TDP.
Things like the Noveske barrel profile, and M249 barrel steel.
Things like salt bath nitride, or the KAC E3 bolt, KAC's IWS Lower Receiver, or LMT's MRP chassis design.
Things like HK MR556's barrel steel, or something. Noveske Switchblock. Custom gas ports. VLTOR's A5 receiver extension.
Those are features that IMHO exceed the spec, proprietary parts that perform better (even marginally) than the standard.
turdbocharged
09-08-11, 10:26
Why not buy both and switch uppers than you'll have a Colt-BCM. :eek:
I don't have the experience that many of you do but if it works, and the company has a great reputation for good products I'm happy.
I completely agree with the comment about the unnamed manufacturer who does most of their carbines in house. I'm pretty sure that's Olympic, and from first hand experience I have seen two of them fail intermittently, although it was frequent enough to make me stay away.
Thank you for the very informative post, Grant. It's always great to have a thread started that will generate thoughful responses based on knowledge and experience. I will read them eagerly.
It does seem to me... that lately here on M4C there's been a resurgance of appreciation for the carbine-length gas system on 16" and 14.5" barrels. The fact that this thread mentioned the idea of mid-length gas systems being "better" than mil-spec, and the resulting analysis will be interesting. From reading recent posts here on M4C made by knowledgable/respected members, it seems each gas system needs to be tuned correctly to function well, and one is not inherently more reliable than the other.
Chris
I think you are correct. Quality built is quality built. So either way the consumer is a winner.
C4
I think you are correct. Quality built is quality built. So either way the consumer is a winner.
C4
Interesting point, the consumer is the winner! We now have so many more options than when I first got into ARs in the early '90s, and it would appear that at least some of the lower tier ARs have been raising their standards to meet demand.
When it comes to ''better'' than the TDP I don't think of gas systems specifically.
Bushmaster makes a midlength: that doesn't mean they exceed the TDP.
Things like the Noveske barrel profile, and M249 barrel steel.
Things like salt bath nitride, or the KAC E3 bolt, KAC's IWS Lower Receiver, or LMT's MRP chassis design.
Things like HK MR556's barrel steel, or something. Noveske Switchblock. Custom gas ports. VLTOR's A5 receiver extension.
Those are features that IMHO exceed the spec, proprietary parts that perform better (even marginally) than the standard.
Many do (in regards to the barrel). I chose the middy barrel because it was talked about in the other thread that I referenced.
The term "better" has to show clear advantages over the other. In order to do or show this, we would need to see hundreds of weapons tested side by side over long periods of time. To date, all of the items you posted as being "better" than the TDP are purely speculative and or personal likes. None of them have been proven/shown to be superior.
C4
Doesn't the "better than the TDP" of today sometimes become the official, accepted TDP of tomorrow? USG requirements evolve to line up with new manufacture processes, mission needs, etc. Otherwise we'd still be carrying M16A1s... or garands... or cap-and-ball... Is that thought off base? Seems OK to me but I'll be happy to hear otherwise.
That said, if the TDP gives you something great, I'm personally not interested in much effort to find something that's just a little better than great but has to be defended because no one agrees on why. Knowing the TDP gives you a hard set of standards that are independently enforced by the USG means I don't have to work too hard to know that I'm getting "something great".
But most of the non-TDP-but-maybe-better-maybe-not companies we're talking about seem to have earned their reps. I used to be a hobbyist 4x4 offroader. I would never get a suspension lift done by a guy in his garage. Once he owns a shop I might think about it but never do it. After he starts a brand that major offroad competition guys are raving about, then I wouldn't as much worry about the standardization and quality anymore.
Doc Safari
09-08-11, 11:00
...it would appear that at least some of the lower tier ARs have been raising their standards to meet demand.
I hope this continues. Between rob's chart and the ever growing popularity of the AR, we are in a golden age of AR quality and it just keeps getting better. That's one reason I never warmed up to the civilian legal AK's. The manufacturers are all stuck on legal compliance and quality of US made components is still secondary at least for most manufacturers.
Doesn't the "better than the TDP" of today sometimes become the official, accepted TDP of tomorrow? USG requirements evolve to line up with new manufacture processes, mission needs, etc. Otherwise we'd still be carrying M16A1s... or garands... or cap-and-ball... Is that thought off base? Seems OK to me but I'll be happy to hear otherwise.
Typically what is going to drive changes is real world feedback (mission drives weapons and gear) AND .Mil testing of new products. If/when they find something better, they will adopt it.
C4
Typically what is going to drive changes is real world feedback (mission drives weapons and gear) AND .Mil testing of new products. If/when they find something better, they will adopt it.
C4
You're right of course, I should have reversed my earlier statement... because mission requirements rule, but then the side effect is that any evolution of the standard will take competitive advantage of new processes, materials, technology, etc.
2theXtreme
09-08-11, 11:39
Just a few new guy questions:
1. Is the TDP what makes colts guns Mil Spec? Are the pretty much one in the same?
2. If so, and Colt and FN are the only companies with it, then how can Daniel Defense make a 100% mil spec carbine without the TDP?
Thanks for the help.
.
In my thread titled "Better than Mil-Spec" last year, Grant made a statement that "clicked" a light on in my head...
Grant said, "...Remember that the TDP is a living document and is always evolving. "
So, I'm sure there are changes, improvements, etc. that are being used now that will maybe make it into the TDP one day ...if they can prove out in the long run to actually be better and not just some fickled consensus.
I think we get impatient and don't understand why the .gov can't see the light and understand things like we (I, you, us,...) understand them.
Plus I think we forget that is the actual purpose of the TDP is to insure that our military has the best most reliable weapons available.
But maybe it's just me...
.
Just a few new guy questions:
1. Is the TDP what makes colts guns Mil Spec? Are the pretty much one in the same?
2. If so, and Colt and FN are the only companies with it, then how can Daniel Defense make a 100% mil spec carbine without the TDP?
Thanks for the help.
This thread will help with some of your questions:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063&highlight=tdp
C4
.
In my thread titled "Better than Mil-Spec" last year, Grant made a statement that "clicked" a light on in my head...
Grant said, "...Remember that the TDP is a living document and is always evolving. "
So, I'm sure there are changes, improvements, etc. that are being used now that will maybe make it into the TDP one day ...if they can prove out in the long run to actually be better and not just some fickled consensus.
I think we get impatient and don't understand why the .gov can't see the light and understand things like we (I, you, us,...) understand them.
Plus I think we forget that is the actual purpose of the TDP is to insure that our military has the best most reliable weapons available.
But maybe it's just me...
.
I'm on board with that! The only thing I'd add is that meanwhile, rather than getting impatient while it evolves, the TDP (and rifles built to it) is just fine with me since I can trust it with the least effort on my part.
Which really just means I'm too lazy to try to proof out (and defend) the non-TDP companies until the guys with much more experience than me are willing to vouch for the maybe-better-than-TDP-maybe-not rifles.
2theXtreme
09-08-11, 12:01
This thread will help with some of your questions:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063&highlight=tdp
C4
Don't know how the hell I missed that sticky but thanks for the link!
One more question. I don't know how factual it is but I here about certain brands (that aren't Colt or FN) being used by "Special Forces" or what have you. Does that mean these rifles follow the TDP and/or meet that minimal requirement? OR do these "Special Forces" get to choose their weapon regardless of TDP/MilSpec? I can't see the latter being true...:confused:
OR is it all BS and all M4s issued to our Military are Colt or FN?
Don't know how the hell I missed that sticky but thanks for the link!
One more question. I don't know how factual it is but I here about certain brands (that aren't Colt or FN) being used by "Special Forces" or what have you. Does that mean these rifles follow the TDP and/or meet that minimal requirement? OR do these "Special Forces" get to choose their weapon regardless of TDP/MilSpec? I can't see the latter being true...:confused:
OR is it all BS and all M4s issued to our Military are Colt or FN?
Kind of depends on the claim. The gun store clerk telling you his SF buddy uses a Bushmaster is full of shit. However, things like the DD Mk18 SBR Upper ARE being used, the SPR has parts from various companies, etc...
I do believe however that all of these special builds start with the same colt lower every other rifle does. Some one smarter than I will have to comment.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 12:43
Many do (in regards to the barrel). I chose the middy barrel because it was talked about in the other thread that I referenced.
The term "better" has to show clear advantages over the other. In order to do or show this, we would need to see hundreds of weapons tested side by side over long periods of time. To date, all of the items you posted as being "better" than the TDP are purely speculative and or personal likes. None of them have been proven/shown to be superior.
C4
I'm of the camp that says that if they're produced by a quality manufacturer, like Noveske, KAC, LMT, H&K, that if they say it's better...
There's probably a reason for it. Especially when some of those manufacturers have contracts with the US .mil.
Also... you use some of those products mentioned. Would you have picked them if you hadn't thought they were better than just picking up the Colt Alternative, smacking a can on it, and calling it a day?
If you were to test those products in heavy volumes, with the exception of the LMT chassis, I'm willing to bet you'd see a definite answer with performance.
Metallurgy doesn't lie, and past experiences have been good.
They may not be as proven... but to say they aren't proven at all. IMHO isn't true.
Also, IIRC Colt wanted to sell the government some of those things.
Their ''improved life bolt'', CHF barrels, and some other stuff, I wish they'd release information on.
I understand what you meant though.
2theXtreme
09-08-11, 12:49
Kind of depends on the claim. The gun store clerk telling you his SF buddy uses a Bushmaster is full of shit. However, things like the DD Mk18 SBR Upper ARE being used, the SPR has parts from various companies, etc...
I do believe however that all of these special builds start with the same colt lower every other rifle does. Some one smarter than I will have to comment.
Defintely not the gun store scenario. My boys down there know better than that. The MK18 was one of the weapons I was speaking on. I believe it says it is used by SF on DD website.
If you were to test those products in heavy volumes, with the exception of the LMT chassis, I'm willing to bet you'd see a definite answer with performance.
I don't know what you mean about the LMT chassis part. What's the background there?
I'm of the camp that says that if they're produced by a quality manufacturer, like Noveske, KAC, LMT, H&K, that if they say it's better...
There's probably a reason for it. Especially when some of those manufacturers have contracts with the US .mil.
Also... you use some of those products mentioned. Would you have picked them if you hadn't thought they were better than just picking up the Colt Alternative, smacking a can on it, and calling it a day?
If you were to test those products in heavy volumes, with the exception of the LMT chassis, I'm willing to bet you'd see a definite answer with performance.
Metallurgy doesn't lie, and past experiences have been good.
They may not be as proven... but to say they aren't proven at all. IMHO isn't true.
Also, IIRC Colt wanted to sell the government some of those things.
Their ''improved life bolt'', CHF barrels, and some other stuff, I wish they'd release information on.
I understand what you meant though.
I only shoot SBR's and since it is much easier for me to get ahold of a 10" Noveske barrel (VS a 10" Colt barrel), that is what I run. Do I think that Noveske barrels is much better than a Equiv. Colt barrel? I do not. Is it a quality barrel? Yes.
C4
Don't know how the hell I missed that sticky but thanks for the link!
One more question. I don't know how factual it is but I here about certain brands (that aren't Colt or FN) being used by "Special Forces" or what have you. Does that mean these rifles follow the TDP and/or meet that minimal requirement? OR do these "Special Forces" get to choose their weapon regardless of TDP/MilSpec? I can't see the latter being true...:confused:
OR is it all BS and all M4s issued to our Military are Colt or FN?
Special groups in the Military can buy and run whatever they want. I have filled some of the requests (being honest again). So they don't always have to follow the TDP.
C4
Paul pays close attention to the TDP and what it calls for. Why? Because he knows that it IS the standard.
Back to the TDP. The TDP is a set standard not a guess. Only two companies have the official, licensed document. They are Colt and FN. Colt is the only one of these two that sells firearms to the consumer. Recognize that the TDP cover everything from barrel steel, to chrome thickness to the color of the phosphating. Companies that hold this document also have to deal with .GOV inspections and tests validating their parts. No other company has to deal with this level of scrutiny.
Grant, you're a great resource to us and I've always had good dealings with your shop. I own BCM gear and love it. So, no agenda here other than trying to understand. Educate this consumer please... How does he pay attention to a standard that he doesn't have?
Let me throw this out there. Hopefully this isn't deviating too much. The TDP as we know is the baseline and the blueprint for how the weapon must be made as well as it's components, testing requirements, etc...
Now let's assume for a minute that Bushmaster did in fact gain access to the TDP at some point. If we believe that then the question that naturally follows is why didn't they "seize the day" and use that information to build a better mousetrap?
Why couldn't they do simple shit like stake castle nuts and carrier keys? Why didn't they change their gas ports and chambers? Commercial lower receiver extensions- please!
What sets apart certain companies from others is that they give a shit and they truly are committed to producing a good weapon. They did their homework and they understand what it takes to make it work. They also realized that cutting corners will lead you nowhere.
One has to wonder how companies like DPMS and some of the others can stay in business.
Correct. They can do all sorts of stuff COTS being one of the methods. Generally speaking no one is going to scrutinize their stuff much- which can also be a bad thing.
Special groups in the Military can buy and run whatever they want. I have filled some of the requests (being honest again). So they don't always have to follow the TDP.
C4
2theXtreme
09-08-11, 13:37
One has to wonder how companies like DPMS and some of the others can stay in business.
I don't...I would venture to say 75% of the AR/M4 customer base has not the slightest clue about TDP, actual Mil Spec, staking...etc. I know damn well I didn't before I got on here. And most of those people don't give a damn to do research either. They just want a BM because their buddy who falls into the same catagory got one or because there was a smokin' deal on the RRA...
2theXtreme
09-08-11, 13:39
Special groups in the Military can buy and run whatever they want. I have filled some of the requests (being honest again). So they don't always have to follow the TDP.
C4
AH HA!!! Thank you very much for all the help Grant. Gotta love this forum!
Why couldn't they do simple shit like stake castle nuts and carrier keys? Why didn't they change their gas ports and chambers? Commercial lower receiver extensions- please!
What sets apart certain companies from others is that they give a shit and they truly are committed to producing a good weapon. They did their homework and they understand what it takes to make it work. They also realized that cutting corners will lead you nowhere.
Put that way, I understand and agree with the statement of added value. I can see where some companies put in extra effort (specification of tolerances, inspection, selection of materials, and process, after sales support, etc.). That is worth paying for. Otherwise, why would staking a castle nut or carrier key be valuable to me? I can do those myself.
I'm just lost on how anyone is judging a component to be above the TDP when it is a controlled document.
Since we're talking about the TDP and all,
Does "The TDP" cover all of the small arms the USG buys and FN has it because of things like the 240? Or is it specific to the M16/M4? If so, what hand does FN have in those weapons?
Do you want the kind and gentle version or me being an ass version?
It's not rocket science. There is PLENTY of information out there on what it takes. Everyone knows the barrel steel, bolt steel, finish, etc... etc...
Not to mention I can guarantee that they have spent money researching what port sizes work the best, etc... etc..
Imagine for a minute how different the AR world would be if a company like BM had went to 1/7 twist, improved their QA/QC, and spent the extra money on HP/MPI testing. People would have probably overlooked the staking issues.
But, when one looks deeper and adds it all up then the picture goes from looking like Van Gogh to one of my fingerpaintings after a night of drinking with JDaniels.
Put that way, I understand and agree with the statement of added value. I can see where some companies put in extra effort (specification of tolerances, inspection, selection of materials, and process, after sales support, etc.). That is worth paying for. Otherwise, why would staking a castle nut or carrier key be valuable to me? I can do those myself.
I'm just lost on how anyone is judging a component to be above the TDP when it is a controlled document.
Grant, you're a great resource to us and I've always had good dealings with your shop. I own BCM gear and love it. So, no agenda here other than trying to understand. Educate this consumer please... How does he pay attention to a standard that he doesn't have?
He is a very smart guy. ;)
C4
ztf HITMAN
09-08-11, 14:05
Thanks for the post, Grant.
Is there better than "Mil-Spec?"
I think there is by virtue of the fact that the Mil-Spec is the Military's Specification. Unless your specification coincides with what the military wants then the Mil-Spec isn't all that useful is it? We don't all drive HMMWV's or carry M9's for the same reason; they don't always meet our personal specifications (Per-Spec). If you don’t know enough about the product to be able to devise your own Per-Spec, then you’re probably better off going off of a knowledgeable person’s recommendation… even if it is the DOD.
One has to wonder how companies like DPMS and some of the others can stay in business.
It's simple really; they meed a need/demand and their customers are generally happy especially at their price point. If a DPMS goes 500 MRBF but the shooter only shoots 400 rounds a year shooting at dirt clods what incentive is there to buy a gun that goes 5000 at additional cost?
Doc Safari
09-08-11, 14:25
Price is not the only factor. Companies like DPMS also do a lot of marketing and promotion. You can't watch a show on some of the outdoor channels witout seeing an ad for DPMS.
turdbocharged
09-08-11, 14:31
Price is not the only factor. Companies like DPMS also do a lot of marketing and promotion. You can't watch a show on some of the outdoor channels witout seeing an ad for DPMS.
This!
I puke in my mouth every time I see these ads. In fact maybe I should be checked for acid reflux... It's even worse at the gun shows, but you all are already aware of that...
Doc Safari
09-08-11, 14:36
I also think that "Modern Rifle Adventures" and "Guns and Ammo TV" are nothing but infomercials for DPMS.
Since we're talking about the TDP and all,
Does "The TDP" cover all of the small arms the USG buys and FN has it because of things like the 240? Or is it specific to the M16/M4? If so, what hand does FN have in those weapons?
FN makes the M-16A4 that the Marines are currently using (or were in 2009)
Semper Fi.
Grant, I have some dumb ass questions for you.
You commented about the middy not having a standard port size.
Would that be the reason the claims that middies have lower pressures, and a slightly longer delay in extraction are not "technically true" in all cases?
If I undertand correctly, it basically varies (pressures, extraction times) as there is not one standard?
Is it because the middy is still relatively new, and manufacturers are basically starting from scratch with independent testing?
Trying to ask the right questions so I can learn. Admittedly, I am full of dumbassery.
Grant, I have some dumb ass questions for you.
You commented about the middy not having a standard port size.
Would that be the reason the claims that middies have lower pressures, and a slightly longer delay in extraction are not "technically true" in all cases?
If I undertand correctly, it basically varies (pressures, extraction times) as there is not one standard?
Is it because the middy is still relatively new, and manufacturers are basically starting from scratch with independent testing?
Trying to ask the right questions so I can learn. Admittedly, I am full of dumbassery.
Your questions are all good. There just is no set standard for the middy. Colt wrote the M4 TDP and then the Govt bought off on it. For there to be a standard spec (in regards to GP size), the same or similiar thing would need to happen again.
C4
brzusa.1911
09-08-11, 15:08
Thanks Grant, great thread.
FN makes the M-16A4 that the Marines are currently using (or were in 2009)
Semper Fi.
Goddamnit, I knew that :suicide: Thanks for the response.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 15:45
I don't know what you mean about the LMT chassis part. What's the background there?
I meant that the LMT chassis probably doesn't do anything significantly better than a standard M4 upper, or any other forged monolithic receiver. Like VLTOR.
As for background. I've never owned an LMT monolithic gun, I've only shot one, several times, and I owned a few LWRCi ''monolithic'' guns. I don't think it's ''better'' in most respects, but I acknowledge that it COULD have more accuracy potential. That's why it was added to the list.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 15:49
I only shoot SBR's and since it is much easier for me to get ahold of a 10" Noveske barrel (VS a 10" Colt barrel), that is what I run. Do I think that Noveske barrels is much better than a Equiv. Colt barrel? I do not. Is it a quality barrel? Yes.
C4
But you could still get a standard 4150 CMV, HPT/MPI, chrome lined, button rifled, government profile barrel from BCM, or DD, which is more or less identical to the Colt barrel.
Now, other factors may be at play (you may get reduced price, or something) but when you have other options, you still choose a better (relative term) barrel.
May I ask why you don't think the Noveske barrel is any/much better than the Colt equivalent?
Grant:
I'm not trying to argue with you, pick fights, or anything. Tones can get lost over the keyboard, so don't think I'm dicking with you or anything.
I meant that the LMT chassis probably doesn't do anything significantly better than a standard M4 upper, or any other forged monolithic receiver. Like VLTOR.
As for background. I've never owned an LMT monolithic gun, I've only shot one, several times, and I owned a few LWRCi ''monolithic'' guns. I don't think it's ''better'' in most respects, but I acknowledge that it COULD have more accuracy potential. That's why it was added to the list.
Gotcha! Thanks... just wasn't quite sure what you meant.
But you could still get a standard 4150 CMV, HPT/MPI, chrome lined, button rifled, government profile barrel from BCM, or DD, which is more or less identical to the Colt barrel.
The word identical always concerns me when comparing a company with the TDP and one without.
May I ask why you don't think the Noveske barrel is any/much better than the Colt equivalent?
I have not seen it do enough different things than a Colt barrel to say for certain that it exceeds the TDP specs. With that said, it has served me well and would always recommend them.
Grant:
I'm not trying to argue with you, pick fights, or anything. Tones can get lost over the keyboard, so don't think I'm dicking with you or anything.
No worries. I am not going to argue with anyone concerning this topic. Much of it is my personal opinion based off what I know. If you don't agree with my opinion, I am cool with that.
C4
Interesting thing about the TDP is that there are allowed "addendum’s" to it. If the manufacturer can show the Govt that something is better than what the spec calls out, they can use it.
Rumor has it, that Colt deviates from a couple things that the TDP calls out (with .gov approval).
C4
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 17:40
Interesting thing about the TDP is that there are allowed "addendum’s" to it. If the manufacturer can show the Govt that something is better than what the spec calls out, they can use it.
Rumor has it, that Colt deviates from a couple things that the TDP calls out (with .gov approval).
C4
I take it you either don't know, or couldn't tell us what they are.
Or... where those ''rumors'' came from.
IMHO. Rumors like that don't start unless there's a good reason for it.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-11, 17:43
The word identical always concerns me when comparing a company with the TDP and one without.
That concern is understood, but we don't know just how Colt does things differently than other manufacturers.
Doesn't BCM, KAC, DD, and LMT also have a access to the TDP?...
I have not seen it do enough different things than a Colt barrel to say for certain that it exceeds the TDP specs. With that said, it has served me well and would always recommend them.
Have you ever directly compared the two?
No worries. I am not going to argue with anyone concerning this topic. Much of it is my personal opinion based off what I know. If you don't agree with my opinion, I am cool with that.
C4
I understand, and I share the same views. However, I'm more likely to listen to you, because you have more experience than I do, and have access to more information that me, from more reliable sources.
Hence, why I was interested in your opinion.
Thanks for posting this, good read.
One has to wonder how companies like DPMS and some of the others can stay in business.
Other have made valid points for this phenom, another is volumn. I regularily frequent most of the known gunshops in my area, and there are plenty in the metro area, and I can say with absolute certainty, that you will find 10 DPMS/RRA/other lower end ARs for every 1 Colt/DD/other higher end AR. Price sometimes isn't even that far apart between the 2 groups. DPMS does understand the marketing side of things, after all if 90% of the ARs out there have their kitty cat on the side, they they have to be the best in the minds of the unknowing.
Doesn't BCM, KAC, DD, and LMT also have a access to the TDP?...
On this subject, I would be curious if any of the principals of these companies worked for Colt or FN at any time? I would assume yes.
Great thread btw, interesting stuff.
TonyTacoma
09-08-11, 19:27
Great read, always learn something here!
Mid > < = carbine......it has been overthunk by lots of folks. I was always under the assumption (and I chose those words carefully just then) that the 16" midlength was the logical response to, and cure for, the 16" carbine which was never meant to be 16". I leave it at that and buy 16" mids while anything shorter than 16 I'll use a carbine GS.
Beyond that I don't think about the things I don't think about.
Grant, you state that Vickers/Hackathorn both chose carbine gas systems over middys recently when they clearly had a choice, then alluded to that choice being a "clue."
What is that clue? In what way would the carbine system be better than mid-length? Or I should ask; why do you think they chose that system? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to debate. Thanks Grant.
MILSPEC/TDP is a useful benchmark to measure the industry by. But if every company simply attempted to match the TDP, there would be little innovation. I seem to recall in one of the Black Rifle books that Colt has even suggested changes to the military that have not been adopted.
Deviation from standards due to cost cutting (use of inferior steel, failure to stake components, inferior components) shouldn't be confused with the efforts of companies like KAC and HK to build a better lightbulb.
Personally, I don't see any great revolution on the horizon in terms of lethality, accuracy, reliability or ergonomics. I think the true potential of systems like the 416 and SR16 for the military is logistical in nature, as more durable barrels and bolts push out the unit maintenance schedule far beyond that of the current M4. Considering most civilians will never shoot out the bolt or barrel of their AR, I doubt these improvements will grab the public's imagination.
Certainly I'm interested to see how these variants stack up in the forthcoming military trials.
I'd like to address the "better than the TDP" issue, but in a general way. I used to run a contract administrative unit that included engineering, contracts, as well as quality assurance. We had inspections that covered the gamut from firearms, aircraft landing gear, and nuclear plant parts from hundreds of small, medium, and large companies. It was not uncommon for a small supplier to tell us that certain material was not available for them to buy and build into the contracted part, and that they were willing to use "better" than TDP specs in order to complete their contract on time. The problem with that was that they had a very small window into the subsystem they were supporting.
In general, they would offer up steel with greater corrosion resistance, tensile strength or some other individual characteristic. While from their point of view it was "better," it wasn't always better in the next level up component it supported, and might well have caused greater wear or corrosion in the higher level system. The design engineers called for the best material they could for that requirement, and if they were able to specify alternatives, they would, and in that case the alternative was not a variance.
If a company designed something that the USG bought, generally the USG offered a long contract for it and also bought the TDP so that the US could avoid being trapped by a single supplier forever. (In general, that's what happens with landing gear, but that's another story.) Sometimes the package wasn't complete, even after decades - the 1911 comes to mind - and acceptance criteria are a little more flexible. Still, when you hear something is "better than TDP," please consider that "better" is just in the eye of (probably) the seller; all you can really be sure of is that it isn't spec.
Now, back to the program in progress.
Great post Grant.
What I am curious about are the "smaller things". I've seen a lot of people post that Biff McMallninja's carbine's are the same as Colt/BCM, "because they posted their specs/testing for barrels/bolts, so you're getting TDP for less money."
Fair enough, I guess, but what about LPKs, barrel extensions, buffers, etc.? Do these companies know how to produce those parts to spec? If so, they have never mentioned what is in the TDP for those parts. Should I take it as a clue that a Colt LPK costs at least double of any other, and the same with LMT if you can even find one?
They would offer up steel with greater corrosion resistance, tensile strength or some other individual characteristic...
I remember reading that the M9/M10 pistol trials specified a barrel with a chrome lining. Smith and Wesson asked the Army whether it would be acceptable to submit a barrel made from stainless steel instead. S&W's view was that stainless steel provided corrosion resistance, had more accuracy potential and was easier to manufacture than lining a barrel.
The Army response was that a stainless barrel was perfectly acceptable...so long as it was chrome lined...
Is there better than "Mil-Spec?"
I think a bit of this argument is semantics. I only have to feel the Geissele SSF trigger in my RR Colt M16A1 vs. the original "TDP" spec trigger to know that the Geissele unit is superior. Does that mean the Geissele exceeds the TDP? No. In fact, it doesn't meet the TDP specs. There is no way to exceed the TDP. It either meets or does not meet. There are no other choices.
I think the real question is whether there's an advantage to deviating from the TDP. The answer is dependent on which way you deviate from it. The BM/DPMS way is bad. The Geissele, DD, BCM, Noveske, Knight's, Vltor, etc. is good.
Thoughts?
I think thats a perfect way to look at it.
I think when the cut is made against quality for productiveness it is then an issue.
I guess as long as quality isn't sacrificed it doesn't really matter...
Like most topics on this forum, this has come up before. This thread, 'Milspec and beyond (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=25471)', was a particularly good read on the subject. I've always thought this post by III from KAC was especially insightful...
Any gun is as good as the weakest part of that gun. Cost has to be factored in . If a gun costs 3 times as much as another but lasts only twice as long is it better. The biggest problem with the entire M4 world is that gun is a compromise. The gun and round (M855) were originally designed around a 18" bbl platform. The gas system,buffer tube bolt, everything. When we compromised the design by hacking off the bbl and buffer tube things got funny. We(industry) have been trying to fix this compromise of stoner's design since it occurred. We have tried boosters,buffers,rubber bumpers, rocket wire extractor springs ,pistons , dual extractor springs , you name it. Most of the developments that became the M4 actually came out of a tanker gun program. The M4 was about as right as we could get it at the time. For procurement logistics and other reasons the design was frozen at this point. Can we (industry) make a better gun than a M4 perhaps but probably not for the same dollar and 100% parts commonality. As I stated a gun is as good as it's weakest link and the weakest link in 16" and under short gas system guns is the extractor . I would say it is a 3000 round life cycle. If I can change this $5 part on schedule then there should not be a problem. If I can't then that 5$ part could cause my entire rifle to be useless and as a soldier or someone else who depends on their rifle this way this 5$ part could cost them their life. The next point of failure would perhaps be the bolt. I'm not going to quote life cycle here because it is a not totally agreed on subject but with suppressor use it is certainly more limited. Last is the bbl. A hammer forged chrome lined bbl is going to last longer than other types of bbls. It may or may not be as accurate but when improperly maintained a HF CL bbl will beat out all others period. I am going to call the life cycle of a good HF CL bbl to be 20,000 rounds. There are certainly reports of them lasting shorter under heavier firing schedules , and it won't explode at this point but the accuracy will start to deteriorate at this point.
KAC has tried to build a rifle that all the parts will last the full 20,000 rounds. Zero parts replacement. The downside is it costs more and lack of parts compatibility .
The bottom line as I have said before the Mil spec requirement is certainly there for a reason. It is possible to build a gun that will perform better than a mil-spec gun that may not meet the requirement. Many people claiming Mil-spec may not actually meet that requirement for something as obscure as ISO certification.
There are so many good choices out there in the AR world . So many good companies doing innovative stuff . I would hate to see industry not advance the AR design because we are held to trying to just build mil-spec guns.
At what point does a gun not become an AR anymore? We all know that the non-full curve magazine is a weak link. Would you guys be willing to throw all your mags away in order to achieve a higher level of reliability? We(US gov't) were not willing to take that step with the SCAR.
Just some thoughts ;sorry for a rambling post , it is not meant to be a rant.
__________________
C Reed Knight III
Knight's Armament Co.
Just curious, are the Hackathorn and Vickers carbines pinned 14.5" or 16"?
MeanStreaker
09-08-11, 22:47
Thanks for the great info in this thread!
Patrick Aherne
09-08-11, 22:52
Another way to look at this would be to compare another military small arm, the M24 with my GA Precision .308. Is the M24 more accurate or better than the GAP? Not likely. However, it is made to a standard by Remington that the government sets in a contract.
I've never personally seen a Colt 6721 or 6920 that needed attention out of the box. All of them that I have run across, you could trust your life to with duty ammunition.
As to mid-lengths, I've shot a couple from BCM that I noticed a difference in the recoil impulse and liked the extra rail space. I do not have enough experience to comment on the system as a whole, until I see more of them.
Grant, you state that Vickers/Hackathorn both chose carbine gas systems over middys recently when they clearly had a choice, then alluded to that choice being a "clue."
What is that clue? In what way would the carbine system be better than mid-length? Or I should ask; why do you think they chose that system? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to debate. Thanks Grant.
Not Grant but I was wondering why also. Maybe LAV wanted to keep the standard FSB and use the DD M4 A1 FSP RIS 2 rail so he could run the Surefire X300 at his preferred 12:00 position and also have the capability to use the M203 grenade launcher when needed. On the DD website there is a video of LAV introducing and using the new DD MFR12.0 rail with the DD clamp on front sight and saying he will be putting one of them on his rifle.
I vote this thread as a "sticky" or at least added to the "knowledge base threads".
Thanks Grant, thanks for the info and thanks for the great CS you have given.
Maybe creation of the midlength was a way to sell more guns in a different configuration, a marketing tool, colt doesn't need to utilize this as a marketing tool they already had the name an the quality to back it up.
The mid lenght do have a different feel for a carbine. Just my two cents.
Doesn't BCM, KAC, DD, and LMT also have a access to the TDP?...
Whether they do or not, like IraqGunz said, it's what those manufacturers do with the information that matters.
If we—as IG specified—say for discussion sake that every AR manufacturer has seen the full TDP at some point, why do some of them stake castle nuts while others (still, in 2011) don't? Why do some use MIM parts and some don't? It's not a secret which is better. Or correct.
It comes down to the companies who are smart, understand the intricacies of the weapon system, and in the end, the companies who actually give a damn about the end-user.
Thanks Grant, great thread.
Glad you liked it and hopefully it helps.
C4
I take it you either don't know, or couldn't tell us what they are.
Or... where those ''rumors'' came from.
IMHO. Rumors like that don't start unless there's a good reason for it.
Oh, I know what some of the deviations are, but am not going to say them on the internet (Sorry). :D
C4
That concern is understood, but we don't know just how Colt does things differently than other manufacturers.
Doesn't BCM, KAC, DD, and LMT also have a access to the TDP?...
A current, up to date (LEGAL) one? Doubtful.
C4
Grant, you state that Vickers/Hackathorn both chose carbine gas systems over middys recently when they clearly had a choice, then alluded to that choice being a "clue."
What is that clue? In what way would the carbine system be better than mid-length? Or I should ask; why do you think they chose that system? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to debate. Thanks Grant.
The clue is that mid-length barrels do not do enough over a properly gassed carbine to warrant having one.
C4
MILSPEC/TDP is a useful benchmark to measure the industry by. But if every company simply attempted to match the TDP, there would be little innovation. I seem to recall in one of the Black Rifle books that Colt has even suggested changes to the military that have not been adopted.
Totally agree.
Deviation from standards due to cost cutting (use of inferior steel, failure to stake components, inferior components) shouldn't be confused with the efforts of companies like KAC and HK to build a better lightbulb.
This is the norm though (not better products).
Personally, I don't see any great revolution on the horizon in terms of lethality, accuracy, reliability or ergonomics. I think the true potential of systems like the 416 and SR16 for the military is logistical in nature, as more durable barrels and bolts push out the unit maintenance schedule far beyond that of the current M4. Considering most civilians will never shoot out the bolt or barrel of their AR, I doubt these improvements will grab the public's imagination.
Certainly I'm interested to see how these variants stack up in the forthcoming military trials.
Just as an FYI, lots .Mil groups that are using the 416 are dumping them (some Tier 1 guys on this forum can comment further on it if they like). So no, the 416 really isn't the next evolution.
For the record though, I like the Navy 416 and wouldn't mind having one.
C4
Great post Grant.
What I am curious about are the "smaller things". I've seen a lot of people post that Biff McMallninja's carbine's are the same as Colt/BCM, "because they posted their specs/testing for barrels/bolts, so you're getting TDP for less money."
Fair enough, I guess, but what about LPKs, barrel extensions, buffers, etc.? Do these companies know how to produce those parts to spec? If so, they have never mentioned what is in the TDP for those parts. Should I take it as a clue that a Colt LPK costs at least double of any other, and the same with LMT if you can even find one?
Good question. Yes, there is a spec for everything. I once had a bolt cath roll pin that I thought was out of spec. So I made a phone call to someone that had the legit TDP. Sure enough, it was.
Is the roll pin spec all that exciting and interesting? No. Is there a standard material and size req? Yep.
The thing you have to remember about companies stating that they follow the TDP is that don't really have the REAL TDP. They also don't make anything in house (which means no control). So they buy parts from companies that "advise" them that they know what the spec is. This again could be very true or it could be a lie. You be the judge. Oh wait, you don't know what the TDP says either. See my bolt catch roll pin story. ;)
C4
Nathan_Bell
09-09-11, 09:04
Interesting thing about the TDP is that there are allowed "addendum’s" to it. If the manufacturer can show the Govt that something is better than what the spec calls out, they can use it.
Rumor has it, that Colt deviates from a couple things that the TDP calls out (with .gov approval).
C4
After speaking to several engineers and NDT techs over the years, I am curious if some of that deviation is in using other testing methods for the bolts.
"MPI is better than just looking at the part, but there are so many better options" is what I was told by one engineer who I was discussing ARs with.
Doc Safari
09-09-11, 09:04
The thing you have to remember about companies stating that they follow the TDP is that don't really have the REAL TDP. They also don't make anything in house (which means no control). So they buy parts from companies that "advise" them that they know what the spec is. This again could be very true or it could be a lie. You be the judge. Oh wait, you don't know what the TDP says either. See my bolt catch roll pin story. ;)
C4
So, not to unintentionally cast doubt on a company like BCM (whom we've already established is my favorite), but how does a consumer know for sure that the company's products are as close to mil-spec as possible, other than to read testimonials from people that know them, or to read accounts of how they successfully held up under stress?
I think a bit of this argument is semantics. I only have to feel the Geissele SSF trigger in my RR Colt M16A1 vs. the original "TDP" spec trigger to know that the Geissele unit is superior. Does that mean the Geissele exceeds the TDP? No. In fact, it doesn't meet the TDP specs. There is no way to exceed the TDP. It either meets or does not meet. There are no other choices.
I think the real question is whether there's an advantage to deviating from the TDP. The answer is dependent on which way you deviate from it. The BM/DPMS way is bad. The Geissele, DD, BCM, Noveske, Knight's, Vltor, etc. is good.
Thoughts?
All valid points I think. Were we get into problems is when ones opinion (or a manufacturers opinion) that product XYZ is superior to what the TDP calls out. My question and the point of this thread is, how do you know? What extensive testing has been done to prove this POV??
As I stated earlier, most of this is just personal opinion on what "Feels" better to THAT person. Like your trigger analogy, forum member SURF will tell you that he runs a standard USGI trigger better than any 2 stage trigger (see his youtube vid on the subject). So for him, your opinion is not accurate.
C4
Just curious, are the Hackathorn and Vickers carbines pinned 14.5" or 16"?
Yes and no.
C4
I vote this thread as a "sticky" or at least added to the "knowledge base threads".
Thanks Grant, thanks for the info and thanks for the great CS you have given.
Thanks for the feedback and your business.
C4
The mid lenght do have a different feel for a carbine. Just my two cents.
Depends on who made each weapon. ;)
C4
Just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone of being polite and respectful.
C4
The clue is that mid-length barrels do not do enough over a properly gassed carbine to warrant having one.
C4
I suspect that a 6920 or 6720 would fall in the properly gassed category, correct? If so you just settled my "which AR do I get next" debate.
So, not to unintentionally cast doubt on a company like BCM (whom we've already established is my favorite), but how does a consumer know for sure that the company's products are as close to mil-spec as possible, other than to read testimonials from people that know them, or to read accounts of how they successfully held up under stress?
Well, it I was a consumer and was thinking of buying from a company that JUST RECENTLY started listed everything they do as "Mil-Spec" for REALLY CHEAP PRICES, I would read this post and then ask them question from it: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063
I would also consider asking to see CURRENT documentation of testing, materials used, etc.
For me personally, I have see BCM's documentation and what they do is legit and correct.
C4
I suspect that a 6920 or 6720 would fall in the properly gassed category, correct? If so you just settled my "which AR do I get next" debate.
Yes.
Let's talk for a second about proper port size. The TDP states that a 14.5 barrel with a carbine gas system has a port size of .063. Now when you add another 1.5 inches to that barrel, you have increased the dwell time/pressure so IMHO, the gas port size should NOW be .061.
C4
Just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone of being polite and respectful.
C4
I agree, this might be one of the most civil discussions I've seen here in a while.
IMHO, "better than TDP" is completely subjective to the end user. One could argue that things like HF barrels, the Vltor MUR, KAC E3 bolt, etc are "better". The truth is they are just different. Personally, I would take any of those items over the standard, but that's a personal preference. It is also a matter of cost as well. Are you willing to pay a premium for those perceived improvements? Maybe or maybe not. If I may go a step further, someone could argue that KAC's process does not include HPT / MPI. Does that make their barrel & bolt inferior? KAC has made a reasonable argument that it does not. While I would prefer they did, I choose to use their product because it has been proven that their system is reliable and I've experienced it firsthand. I know they have exhaustively tested it and have good cause behind their methods. The primary reason I am willing to make an exception is because of their credibility and QC. The same logic applies to BCM, Noveske & LMT. They may not have access to the current TDP, but if they say that something they produce meets TDP, their track record (i.e. credibility) allows me to place trust in their statements. Other companies that make similar claims may not garner the same trust because of their prior track record & lack of credibility in my personal veiw.
Price is not the only factor. Companies like DPMS also do a lot of marketing and promotion. You can't watch a show on some of the outdoor channels witout seeing an ad for DPMS.
And this is why their POS gun cost as much as a quality piece from LMT, Colt, BCM or DD.
Doc Safari
09-09-11, 11:02
For me personally, I have see BCM's documentation and what they do is legit and correct.
C4
This is one of the primary reasons (and testimonials from people here) why I chose BCM over even Colt.
Thanks for the info.
I'm beginning to think BCM is one of the best-kept secrets in the AR world. (I'll stop drooling now, promise. :D)
Daniel Defense, LMT, Noveske, and other top tier makers are all right up there, too. I just don't know as much about them so I can't make any comment about them.
This is one of the primary reasons (and testimonials from people here) why I chose BCM over even Colt.
Thanks for the info.
I'm beginning to think BCM is one of the best-kept secrets in the AR world. (I'll stop drooling now, promise. :D)
Daniel Defense, LMT, Noveske, and other top tier makers are all right up there, too. I just don't know as much about them so I can't make any comment about them.
As I have stated in this thread and on the forum many, many times, Paul (owner of BCM) is one of the MOST honest and TRUSTWORTHY people I know. What he says he does and what he does is always correct.
My favorite saying is "Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is around." This would be Paul and BCM.
C4
So Noveske isn't doing anymore carbine gas CHF barrels in the 14.5 and 16 inch lengths , just mid-length ?
So Noveske isn't doing anymore carbine gas CHF barrels in the 14.5 and 16 inch lengths , just mid-length ?
No idea. Good question to ask them.
C4
Chris17404
09-09-11, 14:26
Yes.
Let's talk for a second about proper port size. The TDP states that a 14.5 barrel with a carbine gas system has a port size of .063. Now when you add another 1.5 inches to that barrel, you have increased the dwell time/pressure so IMHO, the gas port size should NOW be .061.
Grant... since Colt follows the TDP, do the 6920 and 6720 have a port size of .063 or .061? If it's .063, then to be "mil-spec" and run as they're designed, they should both ideally have 14.5" barrels, right? Or, did Colt make some other mods to the gun to make them "properly gassed" using the .063 port size?
What other factors go into a properly gassed carbine length system? Carrier weight? Buffer weight? What are these specs according to the TDP?
Also... do we know what port sizes BCM/DD/etc use on their 16" and 14.5" carbine gas barrels?
Again, thanks for this great thread. It's one of the best I've read on M4C.
Chris
Well, it I was a consumer and was thinking of buying from a company that JUST RECENTLY started listed everything they do as "Mil-Spec" for REALLY CHEAP PRICES, I would read this post and then ask them question from it: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063
I would also consider asking to see CURRENT documentation of testing, materials used, etc.
For me personally, I have see BCM's documentation and what they do is legit and correct.
C4
As to the documents you have seen and posted in the aforementioned thread that is now closed. What was the last document in the sequence? There was no explanation for it.
Wow, this has been a very informative thread, it should definitely be stickied. Thank you for starting this Grant, and thank you to everyone who has contributed!
I'm not new to the AR platform but I've been out of the loop for a while. I decided to build a carbine to kill some time in the months before I leave for BCT and this forum has definitely given me the information that I need to build a quality piece of equipment. I've always read about BCM and now I know why they are better than the 'big name brands.' I'm looking forward to picking up my upper from them in a few weeks :dance3:
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge!
As to the documents you have seen and posted in the aforementioned thread that is now closed. What was the last document in the sequence? There was no explanation for it.
MPI Testing done on Bolts.
C4
Grant... since Colt follows the TDP, do the 6920 and 6720 have a port size of .063 or .061? If it's .063, then to be "mil-spec" and run as they're designed, they should both ideally have 14.5" barrels, right? Or, did Colt make some other mods to the gun to make them "properly gassed" using the .063 port size?
Colt has the TDP for the M4. So for the specs to line up properly, the gun would have to be a 14.5" M4. With that said, the TDP specs are generic enough to work with just about every other AR (no matter the barrel length, etc).
What other factors go into a properly gassed carbine length system? Carrier weight? Buffer weight? What are these specs according to the TDP?
Carrier weight (M16), Buffer weight (H), SS buffer spring tensile strength, etc, etc.
Also... do we know what port sizes BCM/DD/etc use on their 16" and 14.5" carbine gas barrels?
14.5 is .063. I have not measured their 16", but it is either .063 or .061. Remember that .061 is NOT called out in ANY spec. It is just my personal opinion that it should be that on a 16" carbine barrel.
Again, thanks for this great thread. It's one of the best I've read on M4C.
Chris
M4C is about adult, technical discussions and sharing of FIRST HAND information. Glad you have enjoyed the thread (I know I have).
C4
Eurodriver
09-09-11, 16:34
So Noveske isn't doing anymore carbine gas CHF barrels in the 14.5 and 16 inch lengths , just mid-length ?
Nobody can keep barrels in stock, or manufacturers aren't making ANY barrels and if they are 16" carbines are at the bottom of the list.
Doc Safari
09-09-11, 16:35
14.5 is .063. I have not measured their 16", but it is either .063 or .061. Remember that .061 is NOT called out in ANY spec. It is just my personal opinion that it should be that on a 16" carbine barrel.
C4
Interesting. Care to elaborate? Have you shared this opinion with Paul at BCM, and if so, what did he say?
charmcitycop
09-09-11, 16:45
.......
Interesting. Care to elaborate? Have you shared this opinion with Paul at BCM, and if so, what did he say?
I honestly don't remember if Paul and I have had this conversation or not. I know that DD and I have discussed this though and think that they use .061 GP on their 16" carbines.
C4
The KAC E3 bolt is one of the few things out there that may truly offer enhanced performance. I have very little experience (just shot another officers a couple times) with the SR15E3, but the bolt (rounded lugs and the dual spring extractor) really struck me as something that might catch on.
This could be very true. What needs to happen in order to change popular opinion is for KAC to offer OEM pricing on their bolts and barrel extensions. This would allow other manufacturers to adopt their product.
C4
Thanks Grant for another thought provoking and informative thread. Being a long time M1 Garand guy, my first thought when thinking of improving the TDP was “exceeding” spec and creating a stacking of tolerances issue. Given the AR has fewer parts working in combination than does the M1, could you still have tolerance issues trying to improve upon the TDP?
brzusa.1911
09-09-11, 19:00
Grant, you have touched on the midlength subject before, still I have a question - you have the option to pick up a BCM upper, 14.5 or 16", identical configuration, difference being one car gas system and the other middy - as I said all things equal and both available, which one would you pick?
This could be very true. What needs to happen in order to change popular opinion is for KAC to offer OEM pricing on their bolts and barrel extensions. This would allow other manufacturers to adopt their product.
C4
This would be phenomenal, bringing the design into wider use and driving cost down.
Grant, you have touched on the midlength subject before, still I have a question - you have the option to pick up a BCM upper, 14.5 or 16", identical configuration, difference being one car gas system and the other middy - as I said all things equal and both available, which one would you pick?
Let me first say that I only shoot 10.5's.
I generally only shoot with a suppressor on, so my choice would be a 14.5" middy.
C4
brzusa.1911
09-10-11, 12:47
Is it fair to say that a rifle that comes with "all" parts in accordance with TDP but has hammer forged barrel, a top notch rail/handguard system (DD, Larue, Centurion, ... ), midlength, ... is above TDP?
Is it fair to say that a rifle that comes with "all" parts in accordance with TDP but has hammer forged barrel, a top notch rail/handguard system (DD, Larue, Centurion, ... ), midlength, ... is above TDP?
You really cannot be in "accordance with the TDP" if you do not officially have it IMHO. As I have stated in here, Colt doesn't follow the TDP (exactly). So there are some things that they do that no one knows about.
Remember that when say something is "better" you have to state why. Meaning large scale testing done that shows that over 100 rifles, ones with this barrel steel or that gas port position are more reliable, accurate, etc. If you cannot back up the claim of "better" than it is nothing more than a personal opinion based off your preferences and experiences.
C4
Belmont31R
09-10-11, 13:18
Is it fair to say that a rifle that comes with "all" parts in accordance with TDP but has hammer forged barrel, a top notch rail/handguard system (DD, Larue, Centurion, ... ), midlength, ... is above TDP?
I wouldn't classify those types of things as needing to adhere to the TDP.
The military or at least certain sub groups within the military actually do buy a lot of commercial stuff. SOF groups, AMU, COTS purchases, ect. At one point or another many different things will be used.
I think people are over thinking this way too much. The most important thing is to buy from a brand of known quality. I don't think Colt is the end all be all of AR's but they certainly do build a quality gun and their prices have become competitive with other brands. BCM, DD, Noveske, KAC, LMT, ect all put out quality stuff that Im not going to pick over with a magnifying glass worrying if that pin or that spring is exactly what the TDP calls for. If I have an issue these types of quality companies will make it right to the best of their ability.
Just don't buy junk and cut corners.
Also remember most rifles that are procured are done so from private entities. Maybe the USMC is a little different in that some of their specialty stuff is put together in house (M40's, 1911's) but by and large all this stuff is bought from civilian places of business. We don't really have a commie government design bureau with a gun pointed to the back of engineers heads if they **** up. What is available now, although not called for in the TDP, might be the next general issue this or that.
Last....when you are looking at putting together a carbine or rifle I think its important to have quality internal components but I think things like KAC's lower or some of the newer stuff coming out offers a little more than a regular ole lower. As I said before just buy the stuff from reputable companies, and you'll be GTG. I don't own any M4 profile barrels anymore because I think there are better profiles out there, and the M4 profile is pretty backwards when it comes to known barrel structure for the best results. But if I were buying a CL 4150 or CHF barrel Id still want testing done on it, a proper 5.56 chamber (Noveske or Wylde or Mk12 work too), and a gas port tuned so Im not over gassing myself. I want the appropriate feed ramps for the application and not ones cut with a dremel by hand. I want the rails to be in spec and everything anodized to spec.
brzusa.1911
09-10-11, 14:17
Grant and Belmont, I see the picture. Thanks for the explanation and illustration.
Grant and Belmont, I see the picture. Thanks for the explanation and illustration.
Welcome.
C4
Great thread.
So in order to best keep within the design parameters of the TDP, based on the info in this thread, I am inferring that I ought to get a 6920 with a pinned 14.5" barrel. Why isn't this configuration more popular. I mean being "stuck" with one flash suppressor shouldn't be that big a deal for most people. Or is the 16" 6920 not overgassed enough to make a noticeable difference in dwell time, extraction, wear, recoil impulse, etc.?
Great thread.
So in order to best keep within the design parameters of the TDP, based on the info in this thread, I am inferring that I ought to get a 6920 with a pinned 14.5" barrel. Why isn't this configuration more popular. I mean being "stuck" with one flash suppressor shouldn't be that big a deal for most people. Or is the 16" 6920 not overgassed enough to make a noticeable difference in dwell time, extraction, wear, recoil impulse, etc.?
I suppose technically the closest you can get to the design parameters of the M4 TDP as a civilian is a Colt 6921 with the 14.5" barrel. Assuming you live in a state that permits SBR ownership, whether or not you find the additional paperwork and expense inherent in acquiring a NFA item is debatable. The 6921 upper should be virtually indistinguishable from the issue M4 upper, if that is the goal.
As for pinned 14.5" barrels, I don't think this configuration is uncommon. One point to note is that the standard A2 flash hider is not long enough to pin for NFA compliance; you'd need to replace it with a non-standard part (thus deviating further from the TDP). The Noveske N4 Light series has always had a number of configurations using 14.5" barrels with pinned flash hiders (often using the Vortex FH). BCM also offers this configuration (http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-M4-14-5-Upper-Receiver-Group-A2X-p/bcm-urg-m4-14%20a2x.htm) with their A2X flash hider (a slightly longer version of the A2 in order to preserve as close a look to the issue weapon).
However, a pinned flash hider will limit choices if you choose to add a railed handguard later. For this reason, I am not a fan of pinning the flash hider.
That said, I'll note that strict adherence to the TDP in regards to flash hiders is not something I consider particularly significant. Considering the wide use of different flash hiders and suppressors by the US military, many purchased COTS (as noted in this article (http://www.military.com/news/article/services-working-to-cut-weapon-flash-sound.html)), it is possible to encounter KAC, AAC, Surefire and others in the field.
No. I only shoot mutt's (that I build). ;)
Sorry to necro-post, but what's the rail/handguard on your mutt Grant? Is it MI?
Sorry to necro-post, but what's the rail/handguard on your mutt Grant? Is it MI?
TROY TRX.
C4
Good thread, good info. After reading it I have several questions for Grant since it was your thread and you were a main contributor to it:
In the beginning of the thread you say:
1. “Hammer Forge - BCM barrels are CHF from the premier small arms manufacturer in the free world. If you are a real Mk18 Pilot, then your going to be very familiar with the company. (all of our barrels have a very impressive petagree)” said by C4IGrant, who was quoting Paul of BCM.
--- So who’s barrels?
2. Then in the same large quote this is said – “Colt’s product is the quality it is because of the specifications they set and the standard the parts must meet. Because the part is built to the RI print.”
---What is the RI print?
3. Grant, you say – “I only shoot SBR's and since it is much easier for me to get ahold of a 10" Noveske barrel (VS a 10" Colt barrel), that is what I run. Do I think that Noveske barrels is much better than a Equiv. Colt barrel? I do not. Is it a quality barrel? Yes.”
---How similar are the 10 inch Noveske and Colt barrels, what are their major differences?
---Is one choice measureably better than the other, or is the difference in peace of mind, knowing that you have Colt quality in design, manufacturing and finishing?
4. JimmyB62 poses this question - Grant, you state that Vickers/Hackathorn both chose carbine gas systems over middys recently when they clearly had a choice, then alluded to that choice being a "clue." What is that clue? In what way would the carbine system be better than mid-length? Or I should ask; why do you think they chose that system? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to debate. Thanks Grant.”
---You answered with “The clue is that mid-length barrels do not do enough over a properly gassed carbine to warrant having one.”
---So if midlengths don't offer a benefit in reducing the recoil impulse when compared to a properly gassed carbine length system, and rail space can be gained by using a rail like the DD 12.0 FSP rail, then what is the point of a midlength system? (And yes I realize you personally only shoot SBRs)
justin_247
11-15-11, 17:18
1. “Hammer Forge - BCM barrels are CHF from the premier small arms manufacturer in the free world. If you are a real Mk18 Pilot, then your going to be very familiar with the company. (all of our barrels have a very impressive petagree)” said by C4IGrant, who was quoting Paul of BCM.
--- So who’s barrels?
I don't think Grant has the right to disclose that information, which is why he probably won't. That info is proprietary to BCM and only a select few have been told for sure.
I will say that the barrels are most likely manufactured by FN. FN, DD, Colt Canada, Steyr, Ruger, H&K, KAC, Remington, Sako, and Winchester all have hammer forging machines, so no guarantees with that answer.
The clue is that mid-length barrels do not do enough over a properly gassed carbine to warrant having one
Grant,
One of the best threads I have read in a long time. thank you so much for the valuable info.
Do you mean mid length barrels made by any manufacturer or ones made by BCM who has done the extensive testing?
It would seem that if BCM did the research, testing etc, then would it be safe to say that BCM mid length barrels (14.5) offer softer recoil than a carbine length colt ?
I do own a few BCM middys, and they do feel quite a bit softer than my Colt (carbine gas). Is that my imagination, or is there merit? I hope I am not exaggerating a slight difference because I want there to be one.
I don't think Grant has the right to disclose that information, which is why he probably won't. That info is proprietary to BCM and only a select few have been told for sure.
I will say that the barrels are most likely manufactured by FN. FN, DD, Colt Canada, Steyr, Ruger, H&K, KAC, Remington, Sako, and Winchester all have hammer forging machines, so no guarantees with that answer.
HK, Sako, Colt Canada and Steyr do not have machines in US, so you can easily remove them from suspects list ;)
Dirtyboy333
11-16-11, 11:41
I honestly don't remember if Paul and I have had this conversation or not. I know that DD and I have discussed this though and think that they use .061 GP on their 16" carbines.
C4
Your right. Mine is somewhere between .061" and .062".
There are definitely variances that are better than milspec and are not just one's personal opinion. Like most everything else in the world the TDP has compromises in it and I don't for 1 second believe that the TDP is providing our troops with the absolute best made M4 possible. I do believe its providing our troops with the best M4 possible while taking the price and manufacturing capability into consideration. (except for CHF and SBN barrels)
Like many experts on here have stated, "its a minimum standard". In this case the TDP is more than "good enough" but in no way is it the "best".
Is there better than Milspec? Most definitely.
Grant,
One of the best threads I have read in a long time. thank you so much for the valuable info.
Do you mean mid length barrels made by any manufacturer or ones made by BCM who has done the extensive testing?
It would seem that if BCM did the research, testing etc, then would it be safe to say that BCM mid length barrels (14.5) offer softer recoil than a carbine length colt ?
I do own a few BCM middys, and they do feel quite a bit softer than my Colt (carbine gas). Is that my imagination, or is there merit? I hope I am not exaggerating a slight difference because I want there to be one.
A 14.5" middy by BCM is going to be a soft shooting gun and might be one of the best options for a lot of suppressed fire.
When BCM bases their GP size off of cyclic rate testing. There is a sweet spot there where the gun is shooting so many rounds per minute.
C4
Your right. Mine is somewhere between .061" and .062".
There are definitely variances that are better than milspec and are not just one's personal opinion. Like most everything else in the world the TDP has compromises in it and I don't for 1 second believe that the TDP is providing our troops with the absolute best made M4 possible. I do believe its providing our troops with the best M4 possible while taking the price and manufacturing capability into consideration. (except for CHF and SBN barrels)
Like many experts on here have stated, "its a minimum standard". In this case the TDP is more than "good enough" but in no way is it the "best".
Is there better than Milspec? Most definitely.
Without hard testing numbers (like taking the same 10 guns and shooting each one for 10,000rds), you really cannot say that something is better. It is simply YOUR opinion which is worth about as much as someone elses opinion on the same subject (whom disagrees with your opinion).
With that said, I do have personal opinions about ways to improve the TDP, but at the end of the day, I do not have the proof I need to stand in front of GOD and everybody and state it as FACT.
C4
Is it fair to say that a rifle that comes with "all" parts in accordance with TDP but has hammer forged barrel, a top notch rail/handguard system (DD, Larue, Centurion, ... ), midlength, ... is above TDP?
Interesting note about cold hammer forged barrels. Was talking to Colt about whether or not they have tested their hammer forged barrels against their standard barrels for things like accuracy and life span.
They advised that they had. What they found out was there was no difference with THEIR barrels. I emphasize the word "their" because their mil-spec barrels are not the same as "Ninja Tactical's" barrels that are proclaimed to be "Mil-Spec." Meaning that if you take a company that offers a hammer forged barrel or a non-hammer forged barrel, I would always take that hammer forged one as it most likely comes from a company that is holding one of the TWO TDP's and WILL BE superior to their non-hammer forged barrel. ;)
C4
Dirtyboy333
11-16-11, 12:45
Without hard testing numbers (like taking the same 10 guns and shooting each one for 10,000rds), you really cannot say that something is better. It is simply YOUR opinion which is worth about as much as someone elses opinion on the same subject (whom disagrees with your opinion).
With that said, I do have personal opinions about ways to improve the TDP, but at the end of the day, I do not have the proof I need to stand in front of GOD and everybody and state it as FACT.
C4
Well i guess there's no way to absolutely prove the TDP is the "best" either because the specs havent been extensively tested against some of the newer features in this thread. So basically we (humans) dont know anything to be fact.
Bottom line is that there is definately compromises in the TDP (like everything else) which indicate it can be better whether its fact or opinion. I give up.:p
Regardless, good info and god thread ;)
It doesn't have to be proven-so you are missing the point. The TDP is set forth as the standard and it is accepted as being "it".
So until the military decides they want changes made it is going to remain the standard.
The fact that the Colt M16A2/M4 carbine have been in use for a number of years now and performing is the acceptable fact.
Well i guess there's no way to absolutely prove the TDP is the "best" either because the specs havent been extensively tested against some of the newer features in this thread. So basically we (humans) dont know anything to be fact.
Bottom line is that there is definately compromises in the TDP (like everything else) which indicate it can be better whether its fact or opinion. I give up.:p
Regardless, good info and god thread ;)
Well i guess there's no way to absolutely prove the TDP is the "best" either because the specs havent been extensively tested against some of the newer features in this thread. So basically we (humans) dont know anything to be fact.
Bottom line is that there is definately compromises in the TDP (like everything else) which indicate it can be better whether its fact or opinion. I give up.:p
Regardless, good info and god thread ;)
"Best" or "better" is subjective and so is the TDP. All we know for sure is that the TDP is what the gov't wants. Do you really need something "better" if you're already getting what you want or require?
Dirtyboy333
11-16-11, 13:04
It doesn't have to be proven-so you are missing the point. The TDP is set forth as the standard and it is accepted as being "it".
So until the military decides they want changes made it is going to remain the standard.
The fact that the Colt M16A2/M4 carbine have been in use for a number of years now and performing is the acceptable fact.
Yes IG, I understand. All that proves is that it works.
It's just seems that these threads always turn into a philosophy class "what is the meaning of better".
So i guess this is the appropriate answer: Is there better than milspec? Maybe, but we wont know for sure until or if more testing is done.
Can the standard be exceeded? An AR can be made more accurate, or lighter, or etc. but when those things are changed then that AR no longer meets the standard because it's not what the TDP says its supposed to be.
The whole point of the TDP isn't to have a rifle built with components spec'd to do something specific, it's to control the variances within the spec for each component, and their assembled finished product. The point of the TDP is to have very specific and known tolerances and for those tolerances to be all but perfectly guaranteed.
My Noveske is more accurate than my Colt, has functioned wonderfully, and I believe that it is a top quality rifle, but the Noveske is not TDP compliant.
Yes, no, maybe?
Also question 1 from my earlier post withdrawn, how about those others?
Still, there are features we know, factually, to be superior to some features listed in the TDP. The bolt and barrel (the heart and soul of the rifle) can both be improved in both geometry, material, construction, even cost of one or more of the above. We know there is at least one better bolt design than that in the TDP. We know that, all other things being equal, hammer-forged barrels will outlast and outshoot TDP-spec'd barrels. Lord knows we all know there are better barrel profiles than the Government profile.
Can the standard be exceeded? An AR can be made more accurate, or lighter, or etc. but when those things are changed then that AR no longer meets the standard because it's not what the TDP says its supposed to be.
The whole point of the TDP isn't to have a rifle built with components spec'd to do something specific, it's to control the variances within the spec for each component, and their assembled finished product. The point of the TDP is to have very specific and known tolerances and for those tolerances to be all but perfectly guaranteed
Good post.
-B
Yes IG, I understand. All that proves is that it works.
It's just seems that these threads always turn into a philosophy class "what is the meaning of better".
So i guess this is the appropriate answer: Is there better than milspec? Maybe, but we wont know for sure until or if more testing is done.
In "Mamby Pamby" land, you can get away with not establishing clear, concise guidelines or testing protocols for things and just say; "Ya, that chit is better than the TDP because I think it is."
In the REAL WORLD, that dog don't hunt!
C4
Still, there are features we know, factually, to be superior to some features listed in the TDP. The bolt and barrel (the heart and soul of the rifle) can both be improved in both geometry, material, construction, even cost of one or more of the above. We know there is at least one better bolt design than that in the TDP. We know that, all other things being equal, hammer-forged barrels will outlast and outshoot TDP-spec'd barrels. Lord knows we all know there are better barrel profiles than the Government profile.
Good post.
-B
I would say that we actually don't know any of the above. Show me 10 guns fired for 10,000rds against what the TDP calls for and then we will see just how much better it is. As I said, we could go on for years discussing "theories", but at the end of the day we have no concrete proof (which is the point of this thread).
You could also be very right, but I do not have the knowledge base to validate your assumptions.
C4
That's less about testing you and I would do, and more about information on testing the manufacturers will release. Even going on faith, I doubt LMT and KAC are selling snake oil in their bolt designs, I doubt Noveske and Lothar Walther are doing the same with their barrel steels, and there is no debate about better profiles than Gov't (Colt themselves put that to rest). We, as consumers, will never see the data that does exist. I can see why manufacturers would not want to release failure rates of their own products, but I can't see why data concerning "New vs TDP" wouldn't be publicized.
Having said that, sometimes knowing the qualities of the components alone is enough. I don't need to know 3 + 2 is equal to (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1); knowing that it's 5 is fine without digging into minutiae. In that vein, we do know that better geometry and materials exist, and can make a pretty good inference (not conjecture) about their performance compared to TDP spec.
-B
That's less about testing you and I would do, and more about information on testing the manufacturers will release. Even going on faith, I doubt LMT and KAC are selling snake oil in their bolt designs, I doubt Noveske and Lothar Walther are doing the same with their barrel steels, and there is no debate about better profiles than Gov't (Colt themselves put that to rest). We, as consumers, will never see the data that does exist. I can see why manufacturers would not want to release failure rates of their own products, but I can't see why data concerning "New vs TDP" wouldn't be publicized.
Remember that there is a ALWAYS a big difference between what companies do in house to prove THEIR theories and what happens a Govt test. Case in point, I know that a certain "group" in the military is testing rifles. All of the rifles that were submitted would be viewed as "reliable" by the manufacturers set standards. After the Military got done running the guns through their testing, all but three guns made it through to the next phase. One of them was a Colt. ;)
So while I would never say that company XYZ puts out "snake oil" products, I am also not so quick to state that it is better than the TDP.
Having said that, sometimes knowing the qualities of the components alone is enough. I don't need to know 3 + 2 is equal to (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1); knowing that it's 5 is fine without digging into minutiae. In that vein, we do know that better geometry and materials exist, and can make a pretty good inference (not conjecture) about their performance compared to TDP spec.
-B
I do not know as much as you do, so I am not willing to state any of that.
C4
So while I would never say that company XYZ puts out "snake oil" products, I am also not so quick to state that it is better than the TDP.
Does the TDP also specify testing? I'd like to think so (benchmark performance is arguably as important as variance control), but I'm skeptical. If you run anything hard enough you can make it look bad in comparison, or obscure/minimize differences between test subjects. The Army has conducted poor tests in both recent and distant memory, so I don't think my skepticism is unreasonable.
I do not know as much as you do, so I am not willing to state any of that.
C4
Again, there's a difference between knowing performance and inferring performance from known differences. We don't know that the Noveske N4 barrel profile is superior to the Government profile of the same length, but we can make a pretty reasonable inference from both publicized Colt tests and knowing the structural differences. We don't know that ABS carbon fiber barrels are superior in construction to standard barrels, but we know how they manage heat differently and how heat affects the barrel during fire.
(I'm inclined to mention gas port sizes too, since you've done quite a bit of work in that area, although your application was a bit different.)
There's no voodoo in those two examples: physics is physics. Estimating better/worse/negligible is easy. What's hard is inferring the degree to which something is [significantly] better/worse.
-B
Does the TDP also specify testing? I'd like to think so (benchmark performance is arguably as important as variance control), but I'm skeptical. If you run anything hard enough you can make it look bad in comparison, or obscure/minimize differences between test subjects. The Army has conducted poor tests in both recent and distant memory, so I don't think my skepticism is unreasonable.
Yes on testing.
I have not been part of any .Mil testing so I am not in a position to say.
Again, there's a difference between knowing performance and inferring performance from known differences. We don't know that the Noveske N4 barrel profile is superior to the Government profile of the same length, but we can make a pretty reasonable inference from both publicized Colt tests and knowing the structural differences. We don't know that ABS carbon fiber barrels are superior in construction to standard barrels, but we know how they manage heat differently and how heat affects the barrel during fire.
(I'm inclined to mention gas port sizes too, since you've done quite a bit of work in that area, although your application was a bit different.)
There's no voodoo in those two examples: physics is physics. Estimating better/worse/negligible is easy. What's hard is inferring the degree to which something is [significantly] better/worse.
-B
Again, it is pure speculation until the rubber hits the road and side by side tests are done. Until then, it is pure opinion (which is fine as long as we understand it is as such and do not mistake it as fact).
C4
MikeCLeonard
11-16-11, 15:04
After the Military got done running the guns through their testing, all but three guns made it through to the next phase. One of them was a Colt. ;)C4
Can you mention who the other two might have been? :D
Can you mention who the other two might have been? :D
LOL, no as I am not allowed to know what I do know. :)
C4
Well i guess there's no way to absolutely prove the TDP is the "best"
That is not even really the point.
To me, being milspec is really the baseline. Sorta like when you build a house in California, it needs to be able to handle a 5.0 earth quake for example. (not sure of the exact regulations) There are certain things they need to do to make that happen.
There are so many companies that are not willing to do that. I say "not willing" because they know what "milspec" is, and use inferior craftsmanship, materials, etc on purpose.
Until then, it is pure opinion (which is fine as long as we understand it is as such and do not mistake it as fact).
C4
As my old proff used to say "Facts can alter opinions, but opinions don't alter facts"
I'm a structural engineer and I have experience in Government contracting. To me, specifications are simply a list of requirements, standards, and where required, testing procedures to vailidate that requirements are met. From a contracting perspective, these are basically to ensure that the product provided is what was requested and to justify being paid for. If the product meets the requirements, then it can be accepted and the vendor paid.
From an engineering perspective, it depends on what is being specified and the reasoning behing that specification. Sometimes there are minimums or maximums, or pass/fail criteria. A good example from my work is the specification for the required strength of steel. The specifications typically dictate the minimum tensile yield strength, say 50 ksi, along with an appropriate materials standard, say non-heat treated. If a contractor provides 60 ksi steel that is heat treated, he doesn't necessarily exceed the specification's requirements. Yes, the steel has a higher strength, but if it is to be welded, the fact that they provided heat treated steel will mean that it will be brittle and therefore probably unacceptable after it has been welded. In this case, stronger material did not necessarily mean better.
If the contractor had provided 60 ksi non-heat treated steel, he would have probably met the contract requirements, and therefore have "exceeded" the specification in terms of required strength, but he also wouldn't have gotten paid any extra for it.
My point is it depends on what is being specified and why. In terms of firearms, I don't know that the techical specifications are, but I can see how some aspects of the specifications can be exceeded. But there also needs to be a practical and quantifiable way to test to see if the specification has been met. Testing for things like durability is typically not practicaly unless only a specific number of test samples are required to pass a given test.
Personally, I see mil-spec as just a standard by which the Government requests and purchases firearms and that if a particular component or weapon system conforms to mil-spec to me means that it has been probably been thoroughly tested prior to and during service by the military in some of the harshest conditions. Any given firearm product that states that it meets mil-spec doesn't necessarily ensure the quaility of a given product, just that it would have met the contract requirements set forth by the Government. For "proof" of the quality of a given manufacturer's product, I would look to track record and history of performance.
Anyways, just my $0.02.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.